State education subcommittee reviews data to define ‘at‑risk’ students; department reports 187,108 directly certified (40.4%)

A Nevada State Board of Education subcommittee on June 30 reviewed department analysis showing 187,108 K–12 students — about 40.42% of the state’s 462,915 K–12 enrollment — were identified as "directly certified" through benefits data matches. The meeting focused on how that count should be converted into an "at‑risk" definition for the Pupil‑Centered Funding Plan (PCFP) and what business rules and validation procedures are needed before any funds are allocated.

The department’s data team, joined by Dr. Guinness Kaplan of the Accountability Office, told the subcommittee that the direct‑certified aggregate in the validation‑day file is 187,108 students, which divided by the state K–12 population yields 40.42%. "The total number is 187,108," Dr. Guinness Kaplan said, and the department provided category counts that underpin the aggregate: SNAP roughly 120,434 (about 26.0% of K–12), Medicaid 60,484 (about 13.1%), homeless 4,529 (0.98%), and foster 998 (0.22%). Those category counts sum to the 187,108 total in the validation file, the presenter said.

The subcommittee heard several caveats about using the raw direct‑certified count as a funding trigger. Department staff warned that the file the agency receives from DWSS is a candidate list that must be matched to the department’s student records; status can change during the year; and matching is imperfect. Staff recommended a formal validation period so districts can review and correct matched records before the state uses the dataset for funding or ranking.

"We would recommend a validation date period so that districts would have the opportunity to look at the file and validate it," a department data staff member said, describing the process used for the Nevada School Performance Framework and Nevada Report Card. Staff also noted that some data sources used in the review are not universal: MAP Growth testing is not taken by every school, and the department lacked student‑level discipline reporting for multi‑day suspensions (the department collects discipline at school level for accountability reporting but not all offices maintain student‑level discipline in a way that can be matched statewide).

Data shared during the meeting included assessment crosswalks and nonproficiency rates for large categories. For Aztec/SBAC‑math (grades 3–8) nonproficiency, department results reported roughly 73.9% nonproficient for the Medicaid‑flagged subset and 82.5% nonproficient for SNAP‑flagged students; the department also supplied MAP (K–3), ACT (grade 11) and credit‑deficiency figures used to explore academic risk. For example, the department reported that 31.3% of SNAP‑flagged high‑school students were recorded as credit deficient (grades 10–12 reporting set) vs. 20.1% of Medicaid‑flagged students in the same credit‑deficiency measure.

Subcommittee members asked for additional disaggregation and business rules. Several members pressed staff to produce unduplicated counts that exclude students already served by higher‑weight funding categories — notably students with active Individualized Education Programs (IEP) and English Learner (EL) designations — so the work group could see how many students would remain for a possible direct‑certified, unduplicated at‑risk allocation. One participant suggested removing IEP and EL students from the direct‑certified pool because they already receive other funding.

Amanda Morgan, executive director of Educate Nevada Now, spoke during the public comment period and urged the subcommittee to "get the definition right even if that might mean expanding eligibility" and to give districts flexibility in how they spend any at‑risk allocation. "The way to address the potential dilution of funds is by simply giving districts some flexibility in allocating those funds to schools," Morgan said, noting she participated in drafting SB 460 and offering to help the subcommittee navigate legislative context.

The group also discussed allocation models. Staff explained the difference between a proportional allocation (sending an at‑risk share to every district based on enrollment) and an allocation targeted to the students identified as most at risk (for example, a ranked quintile based on academic measures). Staff cautioned that a purely proportional model would effectively revert the new weight toward a per‑pupil base and would not match the legislative intent to direct more funding to places with higher concentrations of need. The subcommittee asked staff to produce modeling for multiple approaches, including: (1) an unduplicated direct‑certified population (direct cert minus IEP and EL), (2) rank‑ordering that population by academic performance within grade bands (elementary, middle, high) and choosing a quintile or other threshold, and (3) adding optional indicators such as chronic absenteeism or credit deficiency to a composite index.

Several members raised process and timing concerns. Staff noted that the department provided a de‑identified validation‑day file and had not yet created district‑level, grade‑band breakdowns requested by the group. Staff agreed to supply unduplicated direct‑certified counts by district and by grade band (elementary, middle, high), to rerun matches excluding IEP and EL flags, and to model the ranked‑quintile approach and proportional alternatives. The subcommittee set a next meeting to review modeling and follow‑up items at 1 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 12.

Votes and formal actions taken at the meeting were limited. The subcommittee approved the use of a flexible agenda during the meeting; no mover/second or roll‑call tally was recorded in the transcript. The group also scheduled its next data‑review meeting for Aug. 12, 2024, at 1 p.m.

The department emphasized that the numbers presented were an initial analysis intended to inform business‑rule decisions rather than a final, fundable roster. Staff repeatedly cautioned that point‑in‑time status changes, matching anomalies, and the absence of some student‑level sources (notably comprehensive discipline data and universal MAP uptake) mean any definition should include a district validation step and clear business rules before being used to allocate PCFP funds.

Next steps the subcommittee requested of department staff included: unduplicated direct‑certified counts by district and grade band; crosswalks showing which assessment results would be used to rank students in each band; counts of students in the validation file flagged as IEP or EL; clarification from DWSS on how flags are prioritized in their extract; and, if feasible, a follow‑up review of student‑level discipline data.